Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 10, 2013 12:00pm-12:31pm PDT

12:00 pm
supervisor chiu -- van ness stop at vallejo. there's a principal concern for those in russian hill, certainly the local neighbors. i think these have to be evaluated on an individual basis and they do have very significant impacts on residents living in the neighborhoods. from my perspective, it is time to move forward. i hope we get this out today. >> as we think about van ness brt and from my perspective in district two as the gateway of san francisco we are going to have that /ud /aud parkway in a number of years and my focus is going to start to be on lombard and what happens and reenvision that street and we need to now
12:01 pm
think about lombard street as well. again, thank you for everyone involved in district two and certainly staff for all your full-time -- time and /harpd work on this. >> i think /hropl lombard is a very important intersection and we have to connect the improvements we're doing throughout the city. i am very, very excited about the certification of the cir and checking off a milestone on this very important project. one of the things that i think that we've done a decent job at here in the city is our
12:02 pm
horizontal options. i think because of the historical nature because of the west to eastbound traffic, something that i think we have been sorely lacking in is our vertical transit, going north and south. the van ness brt is going to be an incredibly important piece being able to move through san francisco going north and south. i'm really excited about this plan. i want to say i came in in the last couple of years of the project planning and i thought this was a great example of the transportation authority and sfmta working together to be creative about the deseens and /shaougss that work for everyone. of course has been pointed out, there are a couple of kinks /thao won't make everyone happy, but i think overall we have a really beautiful plan that was able to incorporate lot of peoples'
12:03 pm
/tpoed back and you address a lot of concerns. i wanted to echo, exhibitioner chiu, i will also be supporting the amendment on the northbound vallejo stop. i don't think it's a bad thing that this creates some sort of perez tense. i think that level of senior citizen community -- notre dame a huge project. i know on van ness in general we have a number of senior housing along the door /taor. the seniors ride the 47 and 49. i think we need to think about our current ridership and not just our future ridership. i think that /pwer intersection is very difficult to cross. i
12:04 pm
think the double left hand turn just adds to the danger of that intersection. that is something that i will be sporting as well. i think it's also exciting about van ness is we're seeing a hot of new development on van ness all the way from triple a building, up to [inaudible] on clay street. there's cpmc hospital as well. there's going to be a lot of residents and workers along van ness so i'm glad this project is moving alongside of that. i look forward to support, certify this eir and then move on to so many of our other priority projects. i just wanted to thank the ta and sfmta. i'm really excited to support and ride the brt when it's finally implemented. >> thank you. commissioner
12:05 pm
campos. >> thank you. i won't repeat the comments that have been made. i want to take this opportunity to thank the ta staff as well as all the other say general is, the mta in particular as who have been working on this matter when we saw where this was a couple years ago when /sph-pl some of the new members to this body had been elected there were a number of questions that remain. i appreciate that in a very short /poerd of time the various agencies were able to engage this commission and the constituents that are represented to get to this point and i think it took a great deal of creativity of the ta staff to come up with a solution that brought people together and i do support consideration for addressing the needs of seniors with
12:06 pm
respect to this project. i'm very prod that we are where we are and, you know, just again, thank you to everyone who made it possible. i want ton acknowledge [inaudible] who was largely responsible for thinking outside the box in terms of how we got here. thank you. >> commissioner breed. >> i actually have some questions because of the proposed revolution to add an /aeu /teugsal stop. i didn't think i heard clearly in terms of the efficiency of the brt with this change in terms of percentage wise to add an addition until stop. i haven't gotten a specific number to that. >> sure. so the tep has developed a set of rule of thumbs for what additional
12:07 pm
stations, additional stops would be in terms of travel time. so it could be up to 15 seconds. /theupbs since >> based on this project, the percentage in terms of increase in efficiency was mentioned at 33 percent, so as a result of an additional stop, what does that change to? a: >> i don't have the number off my head but it was going from 32 percent to 31 percent, something along those lines. >> were there any surveys done to figure out how many seniors we're talking about
12:08 pm
specifically? it's my understanding that in this -- if /thr-fts any information or was there any outreach to determine how many of those seniors actual /hru used the buses along the van ness corridor. i don't have any information or feedback as to the people who could potentially be impacted as a result of moving forward as is. i'm just trying to get more information to determine whether or not this is something that i can support because i don't necessarily feel i have enough information to make a determination as to whether or not i should support an additional stop. >> okay, commissioner chiu. >> thank you. i wanted to respond to some concerns.
12:09 pm
supervisor wiener had expressed a concern about creating a precedent and let me state at the outset. i understand that concern. it was one i posed for the better part of six months about this. i think adding this one /steugs doesn't really create that much of a precedent for a number of reasons. we're talking about the steepest grade at this particular site, a dangerous intersection by the one major double left turn along van ness. staff just laid out from a time standpoint of about 15 seconds. from a cost /staeupbd point, while it is true that this is going to cost about $500,000 for the stop, in another part of the plan there
12:10 pm
was another stop that was taken out. i understand that's a wash. i understand the point that's been raised about the senior population all over the city and the fact that it's growing, i have the highest number of hoe income seniors in our district and there are hundreds of them that live that near that corner and don't have cars and need to reply on muni and hopefully van ness to get around. from my perspective we do have several hundred individuals. >> commissioner breed. >> thank you. i just wanted to
12:11 pm
give facts and you think part of my concern about making decisions as member of the board is that yes, we get told that there are a lot of senior, but there's also mobility support where many of these mobility vans that we contract with go directly to the doors of these seniors to pick them up. the fact that it's not clear to me the number of seniors that actually mun i as their primary source of transportation just makes me concerned about making a decision so significant, especially when we don't have enough money to pay for the project completely. does this
12:12 pm
decision have to be made today. can we look at making sure that this makes sense as a decision. and we talked about the hoe amount of riders from the stop which may decrease the amount of time that it impacts the project, but what is that number? what are we looking at? what types of transportation that the people we're talking about actually use to get around san francisco. i want facts to make a decision to spending an extra $500,000 for an additional stop and also to /te crease the amount of efficiency in the project in general. >> yeah, i think your questions are spot on and definite live at the heart of the matter. when we were looking at the anal /aeu analysis, we don't
12:13 pm
have specifics on who those people are, but we are aware that the notre dame senor themselves did do a poll amongst resident there is and perhaps during public comment you may hear more information about that, buff we haven't validated that data or ascertain that it's fallen under any scrutiny of analysis, but we do know the actual number of writers. >> is this the decision as board that we need to make today -- the amendment? >> is your question whether we would have another bite at the apple to make a decision on this? >> do we need to make this decision today or do we have an
12:14 pm
opportunity in the future to make an amendment? >> think what we're hearing from our council is that you would not have to make the decision today. if it got made later, it would be an addition to the project, but it would be more of a minor approval action to put it back in litter. >> thank you, commissioner kim. >> yeah, i just had a question on the /tkeu that piece that you talked about in terms of the boarding count. you said there were 450 for the southbound vallejo but roughly 70 from the northbound vallejo spot. i've heard from seniors that they want a safe place to get off the bus. >> that's a good point and i don't have that number off my
12:15 pm
head. i can check -- my mta /kol /haoegs may know it, but that's the other half of it. the boardings are near the end of it >> there's a stop at north because there's not a southbound at broadway. >> okay, let's address this after public comment. i do want to address any member of the advisory committee who are
12:16 pm
here. members of the cac for van ness brt. and other than that we can open up for general public comment. i don't have any cards. are any cards over -- start reading some names. if you are a member of the van ness advisory committee, please come forward, and i will read some cards. >> hi, i'm michelle grant. i was on the citizen's advisory committee and i think you all have the material received from the coalition on adequate review. it's about 30 pages and was sent out september 3. this challenges the environmental impact report and
12:17 pm
hopefully you've all reviewed it. i think at this point it would be very helpful to postpone the /sro*et on vote on the entire eir report until you read it. as was pointed out, the closer we get to doing something, the more people will become aware of this project and the more you can clarify, that would help the situation quite a bit. also, there is this confusion about the senior citizen impact which could also be clarified more before it's approved. wiener and breed brought up some very good points. i think
12:18 pm
the environmental impact probation report has some real holes and ambiguities and make statements that there's no factual basis behind it. i think you need to review this before you make a vote. >> thank you very much. i'll read cards: george, john abraham, tim donely, stephanie change, sylvia. and we'll stop there. >> good afternoon. my name is george, my wife and i have lived in the van ness brt for 35 years. we love this area. it's perfect for walking. we like the aspect [inaudible] pedestrian safety, but we remain concerned about program.
12:19 pm
the concerns are [inaudible] the chaos due to construction when all traffic the pinched into two lanes in each direction. interesting [inaudible] trip to review the mexico city brt. actually a comparison of the van ness proposal helped illustrate what is wrong with the plan. average stops facing at least twice that of the van ness system. times savings up to 60 minutes, versus 7 for the van ness. van ness cars still average 10 miles per hour. in the short van ness corridor with high density crossing traffic and transit lines,you can't do better without compromise to the other
12:20 pm
crosslines in traffic. a ten point penalty would be assessed for this plan due to low commercial speeds. basically it's not rapid transit. [inaudible] bike or other muni trips, but auto transit time is 2/3 of the brt time. this is not transit growth. aversion from walk, bike does not make sense. more than 50 percent of the trips which start in the corridor are already walk or bike. it's the greenest most economical choice. finally, we know it's likely this proposal will be approved. we appreciate the board for et
12:21 pm
its efforts related to our traffic concerns. we remain fundamentally opposed -- >> thank you very much. we just want to reiterate we have two minutes. i didn't quite catch the ending bell. next speaker please. >> afternoon to everyone. i just want you to know that i really appreciate what you're up to, especially the board of supervisors, members on this board. i have a very he have heavy and cynical heart in regards to the project operators that are pushing this project. it seems like several of the other projects that have
12:22 pm
been before this board and have been hoisted on the public just because they were projects that the project managers needed to create a career around and justify their inflated salaries. question in point are what we're calling transit shelters there really are add advertising platforms that shelter no one from anything and never will. i'm afraid the same kind of inattention to detail is operating here. there are giant holes in this project that are being overlooked by everyone concerned. and [inaudible]
12:23 pm
here is to look at the seniors who will increase and use the project and will have to work -- to use their equipment to walk several more blocks, mainly uphill so that you can get your project through. it's just a project and like the transit shelters, will serve no one and protect no one from anything. we'll obviously get done -- >> thank you. >> -- and we'll have to live with it for 30 or 40 years. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, my name's tim donely. i live on van ness, i look out on the street, i see the patterns in the traffic, i take the bus, i walk the street, i ride a bike, i also have a car. i have a lot of dogs in the fight. they're
12:24 pm
paint ago rosy picture and not taking into consideration a lot of the aspects they need to. first of all, according to the eir, goth street is the main route north south, not van ness. that's ridiculous. go to vallejo and goth, you'll see that. the double parking, which obviously is a biggish show. you got three lanes, cut it the to two. if you have to double park anything, you're down to one. they did the study for one hour, from 5:00 to 6:00 and said there wasn't significant double parking. that it only occurred once on one block. you would think they would do a complete study on double parking. there's taxicabs, garbage there trucks. that right lane is basically a
12:25 pm
throw away lane. we've suggested that they make the 47 unlimbed. you don't need two buses stopping every corner. they haven't done it, no plans to do. this project basically does that. it takes away half the stock. now you won't have the option of taking a slower bus that stops at every stop, especially if you're disabled. what you gain in the five minutes in the transit you might lose walking ten /pheutsd minutes to get to the stop. we also suggested they paint a bus only lane. give it a try. if it doesn't work just paint it back over, no harm, no foul. it might work, /phaogt be all you need, might save $125 million. it's also going to destroy the quality of life in the adjacent neighborhoods. then you got kids running around, it's dangerous. then you have the pedestrians that
12:26 pm
are at a disadvantage now because the traffic's going right alongside the curb. it's dangerous, not enjoyable, people are going to /aeu ban abandon the street as a place to do commerce. lastly, i want to say turning it into a wiggle by going around all the loading platforms is going to be damage dangerous. i hope you really study it. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> i'm stephanie change, i live on broadway, west of van ness avenue and i work on polk street at broad way. i walk to work crossing van ness avenue and broadway at 10:55 am, five days a week, i go home for lunch between 1:45 and 2:45 and i walk home in the evening.
12:27 pm
weekday and midday parking occupancy on van ness north of broadway is 55 percent which would mean that about half the parking spaces are empty. this accuracy rate is not accurate. it is nearly 100 percent occupied all times of the day. everyone who lives or works in this area can verify this. the lpa will move 41 of 53 non metered parking spaces. this is very significant where parking is already scarce. displacement of existing parking is not considered a significant impact for environmental review purposes
12:28 pm
according to this eir. the only mitigation offered a feir 4.2-17 is adjustment of residential parking permits or sf park. no consideration is given to my mitigation option such as turning valet replace some of the 41 spaces that will be removed from van ness. the lpa will also eliminate all southbound left tushes except at broadway. the cta staff has -- >> time. thank you very much. that's your time. >> speaker please. call more cards -- sylvia, adam, adelle,
12:29 pm
mr. [inaudible], mr. lieu [inaudible], mr. seto. >> [inaudible] on the causeway of van ness and broadway. i
12:30 pm
live in the apartment for over 25 years and everyday i take the 47/49 bus to go around. i take this bus to see my doctors, by things, see my family members and also [inaudible]. is very important for us because we need them to go around for


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on